Biden's biggest mistake: trusting the American legal system

President Biden's biggest mistake: trusting the American legal system

President Joe Biden's decision not to take immediate legal action against former President Donald Trump on January 21, 2021, is undoubtedly a topic that will be debated by historians, political analysts, and the public for years to come. While hindsight provides clarity, the complexity of this decision—rooted in Biden's commitment to democracy, unity, and the rule of law—makes it a pivotal moment in his presidency and in American history.

On the one hand, Biden's approach reflected his desire to restore norms, prioritize governance, and avoid the perception of using the presidency to target political opponents. 
After four tumultuous years, Biden sought to differentiate himself by embodying stability, patience, and a respect for institutional processes. 
He trusted the Department of Justice to act independently, believing that accountability for Trump’s alleged actions surrounding January 6, 2021, would come in due course through established legal frameworks. 
This hands-off strategy aligned with Biden’s vision of depoliticizing justice and focusing on healing a fractured nation.

Yet, as the piece above argues, this decision had profound political and societal consequences. 
By choosing not to immediately confront Trump’s actions head-on, Biden inadvertently allowed for a narrative vacuum. 
The passage of time dulled the collective outrage over the insurrection. 
It enabled Trump to recast himself as a victim of political persecution and consolidate his base, further polarizing an already divided country.

Moreover, inaction may have undermined Biden’s own warnings about the fragility of democracy. 
While his administration prosecuted many individuals who participated in the Capitol riot, Trump’s continued freedom became a symbol for some that accountability did not extend to the most powerful. 
This perception, coupled with Trump’s unrelenting rhetoric, emboldened his supporters and perpetuated the belief that he was above the law—a dangerous precedent for future leaders.

Biden’s intent to prioritize unity and healing was noble, but the execution of this strategy left many wondering whether the immediate need to safeguard democracy and underscore the seriousness of January 6 should have taken precedence. 
Arresting and prosecuting a former president would have been unprecedented and fraught with risk, but Biden’s failure to address the issue decisively has arguably allowed Trumpism to persist and evolve, posing a continuing threat to democratic norms.

In the end, Biden’s choice reflects a broader tension in leadership: the balance between principle and pragmatism. 
By trusting in institutions and the American people, Biden remained true to his faith in democracy, but this faith may have underestimated the urgency of confronting a movement that sought to undermine it. 
What remains clear is that the debate over this decision—its motivations, its consequences, and its legacy—will shape how America understands this critical chapter in its history.

Sarge